(08-02-2022 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 04:40 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 01:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 12:45 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC's offensive plan was West. Its defensive plan was East. The only other offensive objective which is yet unmet is a second Florida school.

If I were you I wouldn't double down on a P2 x 24. It could easily, and for transition purposes, morph into a 2 x 28. Or it could stop short for profit at 20 and a third conference emerge. A lot will depend upon whether the Big 10 stops with 6 to the West. If they do you might see the ACC pick up 6, keep ND as a partial, and stop this at 61.

There is a lot more to unfold. I can see the SEC at 20 without ACC schools. It would tidy up the West. It's a big we'll see.

Remember every non ACC school added to the SEC becomes 100% rights property of ESPN. Ditto for non SEC schools added to the ACC. A 20 member SEC and ACC gives ESPN the hammer in future votes in a breakaway.

And Bullet the P2 is a thing in a breakaway because it stands to earn FOX and ESPN a billion each after CFP and Tourney payouts. I call that a motive!

JR,

The SEC to 20 with non-ACC schools? I've only heard that on some of the more extreme rumor mongers.

I doubt Washington/Oregon to the SEC is really a good play.

OK State and Kansas, maybe. But that's only 18. Iowa State has a great fan base and fits the culture and is AAU. Texas Tech maybe.

Or G5 and take USF/SMU?

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas, Colorado.

I don't think it likely. I was contextualizing why at the moment one simply can't assume it will only be a P2x24 which is not happening without a third full conference to handle the transitioning as it would need to grant access and pay sufficiently to cover by a smidgen the value of those left in order to mitigate damages.

Anyone we would take to 20 from the West would have to be subsidized by ESPN and would be their move to protect or acqui8re a market.

Like I said we were complete at 16. As to the ACC I could see adding the research triangle and FSU and stopping at 20. A Virginia school would be nice, but not essential. With North Carolina shut, Georgia Tech likely wouldn't be worth it to the B1G. Clemson doesn't fit the B1G profiles. But if you did have to move to 24 you have Clemson, Miami, G.T., and a Virginia school you could pick up.

It's not about an individual school's additive value. It's about inventory enhancement, CFP entrants and Tourney money.

Now about our SEC:
#1 in actual viewers
#1 in % of actual viewers to potential viewers.
#1 in Attendance
#1 in Total Revenue
#1 in Econonmic Impact Valuations by the WSJ and by 3.5 billion after USC and UCLA's addition to the Big 10.

Yes, the B1G has great academics, but AAU schools freely associate extraneous sports, and their fan bases love key sports not well supported in the B1G, and their donors and fans are their consumers. And as population shifts south and we add schools like Texas & Texas A&M to Florida and as UGa is set to emerge and perhaps Tennessee as well, we become all the more attractive as a package to neighboring schools. So never assume because a school is AAU they will bow down to the Big Ten. I can see UVa heading there because it is more similar now to beltway culture.

Sankey will not let inventory volume or quality tilt in favor of the Big Ten though we have some cushion.

Great, even better.

The point being, that would still represent the networks cleaning up the mess largely started by conferences.

This is largely giving people what they want, hence why the networks want them.

And the networks unknowingly care more about a big enough tent ecosystem and the macros far more than schools and conferences which have been more self-serving in nature.

It's been all network driven since 2010. In 1990-2 it was conference instigated as market footprints meant more money, so you could say the network lure was present, but truthfully the dance had just started, and the partners weren't quite sure who had the lead. Since the late 90's networks learned how to manipulate moves. 2010-2 was the zenith of that manipulation. The cleanup is now incumbent upon networks at the behest of concerned conferences. You have it backwards. Which network do you work for? Nice attempt at revisionism though!

The conferences had agency. Don't make the SEC sound so weak!

The networks were the banks.

Are you sure you are not revisioning things? Don't make me quote those long plans and attempts you've talked about- I believe mentioning Ark and A&M as buildup to UT?

The SEC is as complicit as any network. But if you're saying the SEC no longer has agency and control over itself, and is now just slave to ESPN, I think there is some truth to that this round. Such things occur when you make a deal with the devil, right?

In the end, the process needs to finish- the difference between consolidation growing the sport and just bad M&A is in achieving the macros the networks desire. That desire may be for profit, but a positive nevertheless as it brings together a big enough tent to mitigate some of the conference M&A of the last 30 years